Vietnam '69- Hypothetical situation

[fdiron]

In 1965 the U.S. knew that North Vietnam was organizing and supplying the VietCong in South Vietnam.  Though the U.S. did some small scale ground incursions in North Vietnam, the only large scale attacks on North Vietnam were air attacks.

What would have been the reprecussions of a large scale invasion of North Vietnam by U.S. and South Vietnamese troops?  Was the U.S. afraid of Chinese intervention?  I believe a dedicated effort could have ended the war within a month if the U.S. had invaded.

[Toad]

Wow, what a hypothetical.

This should be a great BBQ!

Think I'll go fire up the grill and ice down some beer. Maybe I'll chime in later after I've had a few.

[Urchin]

You have to remember that even though we didn't know it at the time, the ChiComs and Soviets weren't really getting along.  While all we saw was a 'monolithic' block of Communists, they were fighting for what they saw as supremacy in their Communist world.  

So yea, I think the U.S. was scared that if we invaded the North, China would intervene just like it had done in Korea.  While I don't think that would have actually happened (N.V. was a SOVIET puppet state, they'd had a falling out with China- hell China was even seizing military supplies that the Soviets tried to ship by rail overland.. why do you think the harbors at Haiphong stayed so busy all the time?

Anyway, I think it would have ended quickly if the U.S had gone in DETERMINED to end it.  If they went in popsicle-footing around like they did in the South, the N.V. government would have just gone into hiding, and ol General Giap would have just had to restart his guerilla warfare at 'Phase 1'.

[john9001]

are ya'll talking about that so called "war" LBJ claimed he was fighting some place in asia??

or to quote what a WW2 vet said to me "war? war? that was no war, d-day was war"

[senna]

Well Im not an expert on the war as I havent read enough books to understand all of the viewpoints. From what I've learned though, the war effort was actually broken by insurgent VC forces through the Mekong Delta (riverean areas). A region the Army did not want to ingulf inself in too deeply and also the region the Navy's SEALs and other Special Forces actively worked in. It was through this area south of Saigon that the enemy forces and supplies flowed through from the North through Cambodia and Loas. Everything flowing convieniently around political policies of the time. Jane Fonda didnt help either.

[senna]

Dont get me wrong now, the SF troops were very succesfull in that region and their missions were often succesful from a tactical viewpoint. However from a strategic viewpoint with hindsight, they the authors of these books Ive read have stated that the supplies and troops through the years kept arriving and stock piling in the area SW of  Saigon. This is their opinion.

[Hiker]

How do you end a war against an enemy who do believe in there cause? Give me one example during modern era where a war under these circimstances has ended with an invasion.

I know for one thing that if I had been North Vietnamese I would have:

Fought you hard and determined.

Organiced resistance.

Attacked your bases.

Kidnapped and murdered your soldiers.

Killed all who actively worked with you.

Fought your puppet regime.

etc.

And If USA (most unlikely though) was invaded by a forreign country, wouldnt you???

No modern invasion of a country who´s populations were covinced of the just cause of their struggle has ever ended with the agressors victory. It has taken weeks to decades, but finally liberationday has come!

Hiker

[capt. apathy]

hiker,  
 interesting statement.  however, it isn't something that could be proven one way or the other.

 if a country is invaded and loses, every one insists that they where not on the side of the losers. and secretly did what they could to help overthrow them.

and if a country is invaded and throws back the invaders, well, then everybody's a patriot.  nobody would stand up in such a country and say "damn I really had hoped they would conquor us, you all suck"


it's kinda like when I was a kid.  I'd asked my dad why the good guys always win the war? wheren't the bad guys sometimes stronger?

his responce was "nobody thinks THEY are the bad guy.  history books decide who was the good guy and who was the bad guy.  and the winners get to write the history books,  'cause the bad guy is dead"

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Urchin
You have to remember that even though we didn't know it at the time, the ChiComs and Soviets weren't really getting along

 Fighting US invasion into North Vietnam together would have drastically improved their relations.

 miko

[gofaster]

Funny you should bring this up.  I'm in the process of reading both "We Were Soldiers Once and Young" by Col. Hal Moore, and "Street Without Joy" by Bernard Fall.  Since I'm reading both, its taking me a bit longer to get through them, but from what I've gathered so far, an incursion into North Vietnam wouldn't have settled anything.  Communist forces would've retreated into Cambodia, Laos, and China, resupplied, then re-engaged in their war for liberty.  To really understand the underpinnings of America's involvement in Vietnam, you have to understand the events of French occupation prior to WW2, and the Japanese occupationg during WW2, and the French Indochina wars after WW2.

LBJ's big failing was that he thought he could fight the war "on the cheap" by not declaring a state of national emergency that would've allowed him to commit more forces, retain skilled servicemen for longer periods, and used nuclear weapons.  The fact that LBJ wasn't willing to go all the way pretty much set the stage for failure, particularly since he had grossly underestimated the determination of the enemy.

The VC weren't the cause of the downfall of South Vietnam, but they contributed. The Meikong Delta just got the most press because it was the hotbed of jungle warfare, booby traps, and political activity.

Col. Moore makes an interesting observation.  He knew early on that whomever controlled the Central Highlands would control Vietnam.  He "won" the battle at the Ia Drang Valley and set the American presence in the Central Highlands, but that just stalled the eventual collapse for 11 years.  He knew that without the resources to hold that valley, it was just a matter of time before the country fell.  

You have to remember, the Vietnamese weren't just fighting for Communism, they were fighting for their independence as a unified nation.  They just happened to be led by Communists because America dropped the ball in WW2 by failing to support French forces fighting there against the Japanese.  When the Japanese pulled out, the Communist movement worked to fill the void and be the central political voice there when Japan surrendered.  If the French had held out, and if the US had provided support, and if Chennault had been permitted to provide overt support from Nationalist China (he disobeyed orders and provided covert support, which led to his removal from command), the situation would've been much different.  France was awarded Vietnam as a colony after WW2 for two key reasons (a) as compensation for its role as an Allied nation and (b) because the US figured France could keep the Communist Menace at bay during the Cold War.  Had the US assisted the French troops fighting the Japanese in Indochina, the move for independence might have been in the form of a democratic republic rather than Communist leadership.

Tell that to your high school History teacher and see if his eyes bug out.

[Puke]

Well, LBJ wasn't making war, he was sending "signals" with bombs.  

You have to remember, the Vietnamese weren't just fighting for Communism, they were fighting for their independence as a unified nation. They just happened to be led by Communists because America dropped the ball in WW2 by failing to support French forces fighting there against the Japanese.

Roosevelt supported a free Vietnam.  Ho Chi Minh was actually a type of CIA agent (OSS) for the USA during the Japanese occupation and would provide intelligence and that type of thing.  During WW2, the only French in Indochina for the most part were "Vichy French", German controlled and who allowed the Japanese to use the region for military bases.  Regular French citizens get jailed by Japanese occupiers.  It's the British who assist the French's return to the region near the end of the WW2.  Also, after WW2, Vietnam is partitioned with the Chinese disarming the North and the British disarming the South.  However, the British end up giving the arms to the French and also give their lend-lease arms they received from USA to the French as well who run amuck killing a bunch of Vietnamese and trying to take control of the country.  The "Europeans" decided the Chinese (historic agressors of the region) would disarm the North partition and proceeded to pillage and plunder and all that.  However, the Chinese do arm what is known as the Viet Minh in and the stage is set for a battle to get Europeans out of Indochina.  

And as for fighting for a unified nation, do not think all Vietnamese were fighting for a unified nation.  South Vietnam was fighting against an invasion.  

France was awarded Vietnam as a colony after WW2 for two key reasons (a) as compensation for its role as an Allied nation and (b) because the US figured France could keep the Communist Menace at bay during the Cold War.

Huh?  Awarded by whom?  The French did enter into an agreement with Ho Chi Minh that Indochina (or just Tonkin) would self-rule itself and be recognized as a free state in the French Empire but disputes about the particulars erupt.  The USA begins to support the French though because of this "Cold War" threat, but it's not for a long time before the USA gets directly involved.  

Had the US assisted the French troops fighting the Japanese in Indochina, the move for independence might have been in the form of a democratic republic rather than Communist leadership.

What was the state of France during WW2?  There really wasn't one, so this is kind of confusing.  Remember how that Hitler guy dances under the Eifel Tower?

The US does assist the South in trying to defeat communism and even tries to set up a few democratic governments in the South.  And this may lead to the original question, what would've happened if there was an "Inchon" type landing across the middle of Vietnam.  Well, IMO, it would've cut off a great deal of the flow of supplies south and it would've required many of those troops in the South to head north to defend their homeland.  As far as China getting involved, that can never be answered but it was a serious possibility and no one can ever discount that threat.

I'm not sure the nitty-gritty of Vietnam can ever be understood via a BBS and a few paragraphs.  But it's a topic I try to study.

[fdiron]

I realize that the North Vietnamese (and many South Vietnamese) were willing to fight for years and years to rid Vietnam of the Americans and capitalism.  However, the B52 raids up North usually preceded a cease-fire.  In fact, wasnt it a large scale B52 attack that 'ended' the war in 1973?

The majority of a population is going to do what you want if you invade their country.  Theres always gonna be a few radicals who try to overthrow things.  Theres even groups like that in the U.S.

[gofaster]

Ho Chi Minh as an OSS agent is over-emphasized.  He was a convenient contact for indigenous operations.  When the war was over, the support was terminated, much like our support for Lenin's operations against the Germans.  We knew Ho Chi Minh was a Communist, and had been since the 1930's, but we chose to ignore that fact since it was an "inconvenient detail" in our war against Hitler.

Indochina was returned to France by the reason that the Allied nations recognized France as the true government of the region.  I don't know of any direct American support for French rule, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any.  I would suspect that Truman saw it as a convenient way to delegate fighting the Communist Menace by using someone else's bankroll.  I've read one account where the blame for the Vietnam war was placed on JFK's inability to recognize Ho Chi Minh as the leader of an independent nation of Vietnam after the French pull-out, but I don't know enough of that particular time period to validate that opinion.

Originally posted by Puke
What was the state of France during WW2?  There really wasn't one, so this is kind of confusing.  Remember how that Hitler guy dances under the Eifel Tower?

Therein lies the quandry that led SoS Hull to refuse support to the French troops fighting there.  I think the murkiness of their political alliances between the old regime and the Vichy government cast them as persona non grata to everyone except the Japanese, who had no issues whatsoever with beheading the French governor and a French general in a failed attempt to get the French troops to surrender their garrisons in the northern provinces.  Had the US provided support to the French troops (in the way of aircraft that the French government had paid for prior to the fall of Paris), they would've fought against the Japanese and tied up Axis forces there.  If the Germans truly had control over all French forces, and Germany had entered into an agreement with Japan, then logically, the French foreces in Indochina would never have fought against the Japanese.  I find it curious that there were no German officers on hand to control the French officers.  The lack of direct Axis control would indicate that the French forces there were acting as a nation unto themselves.

Originally posted by Puke
The US does assist the South in trying to defeat communism and even tries to set up a few democratic governments in the South.  And this may lead to the original question, what would've happened if there was an "Inchon" type landing across the middle of Vietnam.  Well, IMO, it would've cut off a great deal of the flow of supplies south and it would've required many of those troops in the South to head north to defend their homeland.  As far as China getting involved, that can never be answered but it was a serious possibility and no one can ever discount that threat.

By the time the region was divided into North and South, it was already too late. The Viet Minh in the southern region simply "went to ground" and became the Viet Cong forces.  The fighting wasn't just with guns, but with political indoctrination fueled by a notion of independence and national unity.  LBJ saw the early stages of Viet Nam as the same sort of situation as Korea - a Communist north invading a democratic south - and this wasn't the case.  There was no single invasion front.  There weren't any frontlines.  There was no rearward area.  There were pockets.  ARVN controlled the cities and military garrisons, but the VC controlled the surrounding countryside and small villages.  The inability to provide support across a unified front is what caused the French to lose both of their wars in Indochina.

The flow of supplies from north to south didn't flow through Viet Nam.  They came in through the border of Laos to the north and Cambodia to the south.  The Ho Chi Minh trail wasn't a trail per se, but a network of footpaths with stations.  We already had forces at key points of the country.  The problem was that we didn't have control of the surrounding terrain, and that was the same problem the French encountered.  They had set up garrisons at the right spots, they just didn't know how to support isolated stations.

The Communist strategy was fairly simple: kill enough Americans and America would withdraw its support.  While the US forces were able to win most of their direct engagements with Communist forces, they simply weren't able to overcome the political influence of the Communists and the corruption of the Republican government.  The Republic went through a series of military coupes that greatly diminished its capacity to govern its territory.

Originally posted by Puke
I'm not sure the nitty-gritty of Vietnam can ever be understood via a BBS and a few paragraphs.

No, but maybe it'll inspire some students to pay more attention in their History classes.

[Puke]

Exactly.  And we can probably nit-pick each other to death in a forum like this, until we've ended up writing a book.  To try to state something as involved as the history of the war is in just a few sentences can sometimes make one seem as not fully understanding.  

I still disagree on two points..  1. Indochina is "returned" to France.  And 2. that the viewpoint that its not an invasion by North of the South.  Just because there are no frontlines doesn't mean it's not an invasion.  And there is a reason the flow of supplies moved to the east through Laos and Cambodia.

I'm glad to see another student of the war.  I never stop learning about it.

Fdiron, what's interesting about that time-frame is that Nixon starts to make friends with the Chinese.  

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by fdiron
In fact, wasnt it a large scale B52 attack that 'ended' the war in 1973?

Operation Linebacker II